The flight from the goblins would have been ok if it were just less of what it was. It was nice to see Gandalf get all hack and slash, because that's what he does. But the bridge parts, and riding the bridge down, and then the goblin king, ugh. That sequence of events just snowballed into awful very quickly. Also, I need to count how many times someone charged from off screen to save the day.
To be fair, that is exactly what Gandalf does repeatedly throughout the book. Hell, in the movie they actually gave the troll encounter to Bilbo rather than keeping it as yet another instance of "wizard saves party."
Which reminds me, I thought Thranduil on his elk looking on as Smaug toasts Erebor and then silently turning his army around (watch out for the elk horns when you make that maneuver) was naff. Why exactly was he there? With his army? He just happened to be passing?
So basically that's a graphic for idiots or those who didn't bother to read the books? I'm surprised there isn't one for the ring. THIS IS THE SAME RING BILBO GIVES FRODO. As for the elk, a paleontologist friend of mine completely nerded out when he saw the elk, which is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_elk
I saw that graphic on Imgur recently and yeah, it might be nice for folks who haven't read the books, but I'd think most of that is obvious otherwise. The one about the Morgul blade is complete conjecture, though. There's nothing in The Hobbit about anyone finding a Morgul blade and bringing it to Rivendell, that scene was invented for the movie. Whether that particular sword is the same one that Frodo gets stabbed with (on Weathertop in the Barrow-downs, 60+ years in the future) is anybody's guess at this point. It could be, I suppose, but I don't know how anyone could know that it definitely is the same blade, yet.
As far as the Trolls go, doesn't Sam explicitly make a comment about that in the movie, saying something like "Look Mr. Frodo, it's Bilbo's Trolls"?
Right. The image above says it's the very same sword, not just "a Morgul blade;" that's a pretty big assumption to be making at this point.
I don't recall, did it? And if so, which one? Outside of the Witch-King of Angmar, the Nazgul aren't specifically identified as individuals any longer. The nine men who took Sauron's rings presumably had names back in the Second Age, but by the time we get to LOTR (some 4,000 years later), they're just the Nazgul. IIRC, it was the Witch-King who stabbed Frodo on Weathertop in FOTR. We could come up with all kinds of explanations for how that sword might get from Rivendell into the hands of the Witch-King during the intervening 60 years, but my point is that we can't know that happens yet.
Okay, so the graphic above is assuming that the Morgul blade in the Hobbit movie does get from Rivendell back to the Witch-King somehow. The more I thinik about it, the less sense this makes. The Witch-King just left his sword laying around Dol Guldur where a wizard with bird-shit in his hair can wander in and take it? Sauron needs to improve his hiring standards, IMO.
Do they, at the time of the Hobbit, know that the Witch-King is one of the Nazgul, or are they just referring to the sword as an archaeological curiosity more than anything else? It's a world of difference between "Hey, let's take this to Antique Roadshow" and "Holy shit, there's a Nazgul just down the road".
I don't think the movie makes it entirely clear what they know versus what they suspect (and there's some indication that Galadriel and Gandalf know more than they're letting on in the presence of Saruman), but yeah, the Istari and others on the White Council should be well aware of the Nazgul since the Ringwraiths have been around for thousands of years, and they clearly know that a Morgul blade is bad news. The creation of the Ringwraiths precedes the Lord of the Nazgul being referred to as "Witch-King," since that title didn't come about until he founded the realm of Angmar and fought the kingdoms of the Dunedain (and the elves of Rivendell) earlier in the Third Age.
Kiss my ass? I'm glad I haven't read The Hobbit in 20 years and forgot nearly everything in it except for Gollum, and I'm glad I never read LotR, and I'm glad I failed to remember Legolas' father's name as it was mentioned one time in the 10-hour trilogy, and I'm glad about all this because I like watching a movie without snubbing my nose at what did or did not need to be shown or altered from its precious source material. You know, the only people I hear actually criticize the LotR trilogy are people that read the books. Fuck those people, because they hate fun and I imagine they also secretly hate themselves while boasting about reading thousands of pages of a fantasy encyclopedia filled with pretentious poetry in a made-up language. Fucking worse than Star Trek nerds. It was dropped by the Witch King after Radagast parried and put an oak staff upside the bitch's head.
He's the simple boy who leaves his farming village in the company of a mysterious figure and ends up saving the world. Played brilliantly by Daniel Radcliffe in the film adaptation.
huh, I saw this a few weeks ago too. I assumed that the part about the blade actually was referring to the prop! Yeah, It didn't even occur to me that the nazgul somehow managed a burglary in Rivendell.
My wife and I saw this yesterday afternoon and I really loved it. I think I enjoyed it more than any of the LoTR movies in fact. I'm not sure why exactly. I mean, I agree that there were some lame scenes that fell flat but I really enjoyed Martin Freeman as Bilbo and really liked the dwarves a lot. I thought PJ showed incredible restraint in not overwhelming us with all of them...a few were used as comic relief which I didn't really need or particularly mind. I almost enjoyed Gollum too who I really hate as a character in general. The riddles were fantastic. So I give it a solid A. Can't wait for the next installment.
Saw it yesterday, in HFR 3D, which just felt overly plastic for the most part (especially the opening aerial assault, which reminded me a hell of a lot of that old 3DMark demo) but did at least have a nice sense of motion. Martin Freeman was much better than I expected (he's still Tim from The Office to me), and did a nice job picking up where Ian Holm left off. Not quite Brando/De Niro good, in terms of two actors playing the same character in the same film cycle, but miles ahead of Guinness/McGregor. Aside from one or two scenes, though, it was just too goofy and insubstantial for me to really get into, but on the whole I still enjoyed it and found it a satisfying way to pass the time. To put it in meat terms, if the original trilogy was prime rib, this was a nice pot roast.
I saw it last week. On the plus side.. I loved the set design for Erebor and Dale and the dwarven kingdom in general. Loved Bilbo.. Loved Thorin. Gandalf was terrific as usual. Loved being in Middle Earth again. Elrond, Rivendell, Galadriel. etc. Best scene for me? Bilbo, invisible, debating to kill Gollum or not as he blocks his catching up to the dwarves.. and then eventually going for the leap past him instead. What keeps it from reaching LOTR levels in my mind? 1) The goblin king.. The neck, the cartoonishness, the poor effects. Just awful 2) Roller coasters. The scene as they escape the goblins was 10 min too long and too slapsticky. 3) Radagast's bunny sleigh. The chase scene was just retarded with the Wargs 4?) Azog - Adding in so much stuff with the orcs hunting them was useless. The trolls, the goblins, the stone giants, the wild.. was more then enough.. they did not need such a major new player. I leave this a question mark as this won't really play out till the battle of the 5 armies. I liked the Dol Guldur scenes so not against Radagast in totality,
Peter Jackson answers a few questions from fans about the second film. I particularly liked the second question.
"When Peter steals something, he likes it to be of a certain quality!" --- well played, sir, well played.
